LECTURE #15*

CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

15.1 Introduction

In Ontario, we have a unique EA process where projects can be approved as a group

rather than individual projects. Class EA has been used since early 1980’s and has been
considered as “sub-species” of full EA. Compared with individual full EA, only an
environmental study report (ESR) is necessary. Under an approved Class EA, the associated
projects do not need to conduct an individual EA. Class EA is guided by a Class EA document
whereas individual EA is guided by EAA.

Historically in 1980’s, many small recurring projects were initially avoided by Minister’s
exemption. However, exemptions became a political liability. For instance, the Darlington
Nuclear Plant was originally exempted but included in EA later. In late 1980’s, exemptions
began to decline in number because they were harder to get and had to apply like an EA.
Opportunity was found to do less and avoid full EA by stretching the original act in 1973 to
cover group of small projects with similar and predicable impacts. Class EA was considered to
a reasonable and efficient approach to relieve the burden of everlasting EA. By 1993 in Ontario,
the distribution of EA was 76% Class EA, 6% individual EA, 17% exemptions. In 2000, 90% of
EA was Class EA resulting in very few hearings.

15.2 Rationale for Class EA

Class EA exists to avoid full burden of “universal requirement” of EAA. Otherwise,

numerous small projects have to individual EA. These small projects are carried out routinely
(road and water works) and impacts are predicable and easily mitigated. In the 1980’s, it was
apparent in Ontario that “universal requirement” for every government project were not sensible
or efficient. Recognizing the Federal EAA avoided universal requirement, impacts of a project
have to be above a significant threshold to warrant a full EA.

Class EA poses a fundamental dilemma: How to ensure projects with major potential
losses to the environment are investigated in an EA. Additionally, the Chaos Theory also
stipulates that major events can precipitate from small origins in a complex system. It is
apparent that only “universal requirement” can answer the impacts of big or small projects.
However, it is both intuitively and practical that small projects with predicable and minor
impacts be evaluated in an efficient manner.

*This lecture was developed using materials supplied by Prof. Ron Pushchat, School of
Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University.

15.3 Class EA process in federal level

1
 Every EA system around the world has some means of selecting or screening of big
projects with significant environmental impacts. In the US, the federal EA requires the lead
federal agency (designated) to implement steps in Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
process. Preliminary environmental analysis will be done internally by the lead agency. The
purpose of determining whether there is a need for an EIS; the environmental impacts are clearly
so insignificant that the project is categorically excluded from EIS (documentation is optional);
or an EA should be prepared to more clearly identify the significance of the impacts. In the vast
majority of cases (40,000-50,000), 99% projects were found to be “finding of no significant
impact” (FONSI). Critics of the process argued the EAs were mini-EIS which meant to avoid
public scrutiny and delay of EIS. Fig. 15.1 shows the US Federal EIS process (Wood 1995, p.
22).

Canadian Federal CEAA process includes a self-directed assessment in which responsible

authority (ministry, crown corporation) determines for a project whether EA is required. If an
Ea is required, the responsible authority makes a second determination whther it should be (a) in
form of a screening study or in form of a comprehensive study. There is no legal test of
significant impacts. These decisions are potentially subject to judicial review (in federal court).
The process is described in Fig. 15.2. The number of federal project with full EIS is generally
small (in the order of 25-50 per year). In addition, Federal Government have adopted part of the
Ontario process termed class screening. Class screening is a comprehensive discussion of the
environment effects of a class of project and identification of known mitigation measures.
Public participation in screening is now widespread to avoid court challenge.

Proposal initiated

Agency prepares EA
Categorical exclusion

Screening
Agency prepares FONSI

EIA required EIA not required

2

Optinal step
Agency publishes NOI
EA: environmental
assessment
 Self directed assessment

Figure 15.1 US Federal EIS process (Wood 1995, p22)

3
 Self-Directed Assessment

EA Required

Yes No

Screening Study Comprehensive Study

EIS + Panel
public review No EIS

Minister can require public review

Figure 15.2 Self-directed assessment in CEAA

15.4 Description of Class EA in Ontario EAA

4
 Class EA is described in Section 14 of EAA. Listed below are the related clauses:
i. Section 13 – A person can apply to minister to approve a class EA with respect to a
class of undertaking. Class is defined in act very broadly and with respect to an
attribute quality or characteristics. For example, the attribute may be Ministry of
Natural Resources’ channel erosion projects; quality is expansions or improvement;
and characteristics are frequent, small in scale, and predictable impacts.
ii. Section 13.2 – A TOR is first required and contents are described in 14.2.
iii. Section 14(4) – Cabinet can expand on requirement of Class EA.
iv. Section 15(1) – Section 5 (applications for approval) does not apply with respect to a
proponent who proceeds with an undertaking in accordance with an approved class
environmental assessment. The only way Section 5 applies is if the Minister “bump
up” the undertaking to a full EA. This means the Class EA process releases a large
number of projects from having to apply for approval. They are automatically
approved if Class EA process follows. Class EA changes the very nature of the
decision from approve/not approve to administrative approved. Once a Class EA
process is in place, there is no need for a TOR. The Class EA document becomes the
TOR for all projects. This “cookie cutter” approach may not be right for all
environments. So far, the Class EA process appears to work well because large
impact projects have not been considered part of a class.
v. Section 16(1) – “Bump up” can be triggered by written request from affected or
interested party and ordered by the Minister.
vi. Section 16(3) – Minister can impose conditions on approving the Class EA.
vii. Section 16(4) – When making the “bump up” decision, Minister takes into account (a)
purpose of the act; (b) factors suggesting the undertaking is different from others in
its class; (c) significance of the factors; (d) reasons given by requestor.
viii. Section 16(6) – Minister can also refer bump up request to a mediator.
ix. Section 17(2) – It includes “grandfathering” all existing EA Class documents
approved before Bill 76.
x. Section

The following table compares the full EA with the Class EA.
Full EA Class EA
Rationale for project is needed. Rationale only for the class, not individual
projects
Alternatives to and alternative methods of the No such requirements
undertaking
Impact prediction is needed Impact prediction less rigorous in ESR
Impact mitigation is needed Impact mitigation is assumed to be possible
and effective
Evaluation of alternatives Only evaluation in Class
An approval process A planning process

5
15.5 Class EA Projects

Characteristics of Class EA projects are:

i. Recurring: frequently done and replicable.

ii. Similar in nature – same scale and type of impacts.
iii. Limited in scale.
iv. Minor and generally predictable effects.
v. Responsive to mitigating measures such as replanting and stream stablilization.

It is assumed that the environment would be no worse off. The class process has two steps:
(1) parent document and (2) Class Environment Study Report for each project (ESR) if
required. Fig. 15.3 shows the process.

Parent Subjected Project A Each individual

Class EA to full EA project is
Document Project B planned and
Drafted by implemented in
Proponent compliance with
Project C “parent”
dcoument

Project N

Figure 15.3 Class EA process

The parent document is supposed to indicate (a) conditions that if discovered would “bump
up” project to full EA; (b) how affected parties are to be informed and able to participate in
planning; (c) required contents for class EA for each project. Although we know the Class
EA is less than the full EA, there is no guidance in the Act regarding what is left out.

Class EA provides a screening stage where projects go forward automatically or where an

ESR is done. Fig. 15.4 shows the screening process.

6
 No significant Proceed
environmental effect

No further Proceed
involvement but with
All projects agreement among
in the class approval of
parties as indicated in agencies
parent EA

Potential greater Proceed

impact = file an ESR unless
bumped-
up

Figure 15.4 Screening stage of Class EA

Contents of ESR are determined by parent document and can include the followings:

1. The problem and the purpose of project. The alternatives to the undertaking are usually
briefly mentioned. Background information such as environment conditions of project
area can be included. However, no rationale is needed.
2. The decisions taken throughout the process and the rationale for those decisions.
3. Involvement of review agencies (significant) and public.
4. Environmental considerations (not predictions) as similar impacts are assumed.
5. Mitigating measures to minimize negative effects and monitoring process to be carried
out.

The major differences between full and class EA are:

1. Full EA is a yes/no decision.
2. Only decision in Class EA (ESR) is the alternative.
3. Only way to decide yes/no in Class EA is to have “bump-up”, otherwise “approve.”

Limitations of Class EA:

7
 1. Rationale: Individual projects may not have built it in the first places. Whether it is a
good idea to expand or extend a project is debatable.
2. Prediction of Impacts: The depth of impact study is limited as impacts are assumed to be
small. Secondary sources of data are typically used.
3. Evaluation: Benefits and dis-benefits are not rigorously weighed.
4. Public role: In Class EA, there is involvement of review agency and the public.
However, public input is typically limited.

Public involvement in the past was limited to adjacent property owners and other potentially
affected members of public. Proponent would contact interested parties to describe the
project, its potential impacts and opportunities for further involvement. Bump-up relies on
request from public to the Ministry of the Environment. Public is involved: (1) during
evaluation and identification of alternative solutions through public consultation (not at the
“need” stage); (2) through invitation for those who express an interest and are directly
affected by the project; (3) public comment period of 30 days for ESR. Some observations
of the Class EA are: (1) public consultation agenda not properly managed; (2) inadequate
consultation by municipalities or MTO; (3) mobility of population and surprise of ESR. The
only remedy of this situation is to request bump-up for projects where environmental impacts
of project are significant. The Minister can deny request and approve with conditions or
bump-up.

Problems of Class EA are: (1) it typically contains no explicit description of types of projects
suitable for Class EA; (2) inconsistency between Class EA’s (no uniform requirements,
public input, and requirement for predicting, assessing and reporting environmental impacts,
and developing and reporting mitigating measures and monitoring programs); (3) delay
caused by bump-up request period (30 days comments and 45 days bump up period); (4)
criteria for evaluating a bump-up request is not clear. Onus is on public to establish for
Minister that project will cause significant impacts. Burden of environmental protection has
been shifted back to public and public should be vigilant over class projects.

Proponents benefit from the Class EA because it (1) limits level of investigation; (2) reduces
lead times and costs; (3) tailors level of effort to extent of impacts received; (4) tailors level
of effort to public concern. Some have noted that if impacts can be readily mitigated and if
there are no significant public concerns, approval is possible in 30 days rather than months or
years.

15.6 Cumulative Effects Assessment

Serious environmental impacts can be resulted from numerous small projects in a

8
cumulative manner. We can rationally imagine an EA that considers all cumulative effects. In
order to fully identifying and assessing them, it will take enormous tasks to accomplish.

15.7 Mitigation and Monitoring

Mitigation is included as an incentive to improve EA outcomes by improving project

impacts. There are no mandatory provisions in EAA requiring monitoring of approved projects
(e.g. test accuracy of predictions and effects of mitigating measures). Since there is no
compliance monitoring, we do not know whether those measures would mitigate the negative
impacts sufficiently.

15.8 Class EA Example: Municipal Class EA

Reference:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/industry/assessment_and_approvals/environmental_as
sessments/projects/STDPROD_082827.html?page=6

Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

Terms of Reference
Status:
Approved
Date Submitted: February 26, 1998 (PD 16/04/1998)
Expiry of Public Comment Period: April 15, 1998
Decision Date: August 26, 1998
Summary:
Introduction
On April 9th, 1987, the first municipal Parent Class Environmental Assessments (Class EA)
prepared by the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) were approved under the
Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). At that time, two Class EAs were implemented to deal
with 1) municipal road projects, and 2) municipal water and wastewater projects. The
approval for these Class EAs was subject to review after 5 years. In 1993, the Class EAs
were reviewed, revised and approved under the EAA. This brought certain private sector
projects under the Class EAs. In 1994, regulations were passed amending the private sector
provisions of the Class EAs. The 1993 approval expires on May 31, 1998, and the MEA is
again required to resubmit the Class EA for EAA approval. This Terms of Reference (ToR)
sets out how the MEA proposes to meet the environmental assessment requirements for the
review of the Parent Class EAs.
Description of the Undertaking Being Considered
The undertaking is a process by which municipal infrastructure projects will be planned.
Once approved, the Class EA will establish a process whereby municipal road, water and
wastewater projects can be planned, designed, constructed, operated, maintained,

9
rehabilitated and retired without having to obtain project specific approval under the EAA
provided the approved process is followed. The Parent Class EA is the documentation of the
process. The process that is implemented through the approval of the Parent Class EA
ensures that the intent of the EAA is met by providing for the identification of
deficiencies/problems/ opportunities; and the identification, evaluation and selection of a
preferred means of addressing these deficiencies/problems/ opportunities, giving due regard
to the need to protect the environment. The Parent Class EA will also provide for the
involvement of affected stakeholders in the decision-making process.
Justification for the Class EA
The Class EA approach to dealing with municipal infrastructure projects has been proven to
be an effective way of complying with the EAA through 10 years of experience. It provides a
reasonable mechanism for proponents to fulfill their responsibilities to the public for the
provision of municipal services in an efficient, timely, economic and environmentally
responsible manner. The Class EA process provides a consistent, streamlined, easily
understood process for planning and implementing infrastructure projects. The process also
provides the flexibility to tailor the planning process to the project taking into account the
environmental setting, local public interests and unique project requirements. The
alternative to a Parent Class EA would be to undertake individual environmental
assessments for all municipal projects and/or obtain exemptions where there are no
requirements. This approach would be extremely onerous, time consuming and costly. A
decade of experience has demonstrated that considerable public, economic and
environmental benefits are achieved by applying the Class EA concept to municipal
infrastructure projects.
Assessment of Issues
The Municipal Class EAs are premised on planning and designing municipal projects using a
rational planning process i.e. identify the problems and opportunities, consider alternative
solutions, assess their effects on all aspects of the environment prior to determining a
preferred alternative, and do all of the foregoing within a framework of effective
consultation and traceable decision-making. From comments received during the past five
years and as part of the current renewal project, many municipalities and stakeholders have
indicated that the process is working well. This has also been borne out through the survey
that the MEA has conducted. It is therefore important to recognize that much has been
achieved over the years of working with and refining the Municipal Class EAs. In addition,
with municipal constraints and staff reductions likely continuing for the foreseeable future,
now is not the time for wholesale change of a process that many municipalities and
practitioners feel is working well. Many municipalities as well as stakeholders have become
well versed with the Class EAs and would not be served well by extensive changes to those
aspects that are working. Therefore, the underlying principle in the review and revisions of
the Class EA is to minimize the learning curve. The overall approach is to make any
necessary changes while maintaining the substance of the existing process.
Nevertheless, there are a number of issues relating not only to components of the existing
Class EAs but also to new features of the amended EAA; potential opportunities to improve
and enhance the Class EAs; and evolving new issues and realities which have to be
addressed and integrated. Based on comments received to date, the following issues are
being considered during the preparation of the revised Class EA:

 The Bump-Up Process

 Integrated Approach - Co-ordination with Planning Act Requirements and Application to
the Private Sector

10
  Clarification and Simplification of Class EA Triggers (including Review of Schedules)
 Tailoring the Level of Effort to the Project Significance
 Harmonization with CEAA
 Consultation / Mediation
 Application of the Class EA Process to Municipal Projects
 Increasing the Application of Class EAs
 Monitoring
 Relationship to Municipal Act / Other Legislation
 Other
 including general updating of terminology / definitions and clarification of stakeholder
roles

Environmental Assessment Workplan

The study is being carried out by the Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) on behalf of
Ontario municipalities. Study direction is provided by a Steering Committee which includes
representatives of the following stakeholders and EA practitioners:

 Municipal Engineers Association (MEA)

 Ministry of the Environment - EA Branch
 City of Toronto
 Regional Municipality of Niagara
 Town of Carleton Place
 The Regional Planning Commissioners
 Urban Development Institute
 Consultants with experience in EAs

The EA study is being carried out in the following stages:

 Project Startup
 The Questionnaire
 Terms of Reference
 Summary of Issues
 Draft Outline of the Municipal Parent Class EA
 Municipal Parent Class EA
 Finalize the Municipal Parent Class EA
 Consultation Plan

The consultation plan for the EA study was developed taking the following into
consideration:

 the Municipal Class EAs have been operating since April 1987;
 this is the 3rd generation of the Class EAs;
 generally they are working quite well (based on feedback from municipalities, MOE,
technical agencies, public comments, project experience and questionnaire results);

11
  municipalities and EA practitioners are familiar with the Class EA requirements and
processes;
 overall the existing Class EAs are working well and only require updating.

The main opportunities for input and information exchange are:

 Questionnaire ;mailed to over 1370 stakeholders to obtain information on the experience

to date; those who indicate will be added to the project mailing list
 Newsletters - A AMEA Updates@ - mailed to project mailing list
 Project Website - project information to be made available on the Internet at key points in
the study
 Workshop(s) with EA practitioners
 Review of draft revised Class EA
 MOE Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR)

Municipalities

 The Questionnaire was sent to all municipalities asking them to respond to the
questionnaire and to declare their interest in being further involved;
 Maintain mailing list of those municipalities indicating a desire to be kept informed;
 Involve interested municipalities in workshops on specific issues; and
 Provide a copy of the draft EA to those expressing an interest for comments.

Government Agencies

 Federal and Provincial agencies were contacted about their concerns and asked to
indicate how they wish to be involved. The results of these contacts are reflected in the
Terms of Reference. Most want only to review a draft of the Class EA;
 The Questionnaire was sent to all review agencies - only one response was received;
 Specific agencies will be involved in discussions around relevant issues (e.g. Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency re: integration with CEAA).

Public Consultation

 The notice was mailed to people that made comment on Bill 76;
 Maintain a growing mailing list of people to receive Updates;
 Place Draft ToR on project website; and
 Place a notice of the Project on EBR.

Interest Groups/Organizations

 Make Interest Groups aware of the study and invite their organization to comment on the
current Class EAs. Invite them to hold a workshop and offer attendance by members of
the Project Team;

12
  Provide opportunities to workshop specific issues;
 Use organization Newsletters, etc. to inform of the Class EA project; and
 Maintain mailing list for Updates.

Consultation
Responses to the questionnaire were taken into consideration when defining the issues to be
addressed and a draft of the ToR was placed on the Municipal Class EA website. A draft of
the ToR was also made available to the Steering Committee including the MOE-EA Branch
for review and comment. The comments received have been addressed with the ToR being
revised accordingly.
During the development of this Terms of Reference, discussions were held with provincial
and federal government agencies to determine their areas of concern with the application
and structure of the current Class EAs and how they wish to be involved in the study.
Comments received were taken into consideration when identifying the issues to be
addressed. The agencies contacted identified their areas of interest and desire to review a
draft of the revised Parent Class EA.
Note:

If approved by the Minister, the Terms of Reference will provide a framework for preparing
the EA, and also serve as a benchmark for reviewing the EA. Following the Minister's
approval of the Terms of Reference, the proponent is required to ensure that the
Environmental Assessment is consistent with the approved Terms of Reference.

13